eCatNews Direct to your MailBox

Enter your email address to follow the ecat story ahead of the crowd

I loathe spam. You can unsubscribe at any time. I will not pass your details to a third party

Andrea Rossi: Almost 100,000 Domestic eCat Orders

February 10, 2012

A few weeks ago the ‘news’ that Andrea Rossi’s call for a 10,000 eCat pre-order list had actually reached 50,000 was greeted with mixed reactions. Some tried to estimate the interest in the subject by studying site stats (such as those from eCatNews.com) feeling certain that active curiousity in AR’s claims were too low to warrant the 50K claim. Now, a blink of the eye later we have a post on the inventor’s blog telling us that the list is approaching 100,000.

If such a figure was claimed to consist of individuals expressing interest in one unit, I would tend to agree with the doubtful critics. However, there is no way to tell the fine grain structure of the list although trawling through previous posts we often see ‘orders’ for multiple  units such as this one for two, this for 10 and this for 5 initial and up to 1,000. For all we know, there are many individuals gearing themselves up for a just-in-case condition. If the case is proved an order for (say) a hundred or a thousand eCats could look like a shrewd business move and if it all falls to pieces then nothing is lost.

One thing we can be certain – there are many people with the resources and motivation to do such a thing following this adventure so, while I believe you should take these numbers lightly (recognising that in posting such detail he is also talking to potential investors and competitors) it would be unwise to dismiss them out of hand.

Joseph Fine
February 8th, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Andrea,
1) As of now, how many 10 KW E-Cats have been (preliminarily) ordered?
I think you have passed the 10,000 mark, but don’t know the total. Also, some people have ordered 2 or more. Wladimir says he might order 1000.
2) Do you have quantity orders for the 1 MW plants? Are you building up your capability to mass produce these when the time is right?
3) Will the 10 KW E-Cats and the 1 MW plants be built at the same factory? It seems logical to do so, but there could be reasons to have separate factories.
Thanks for Watts (what’s) happening.
Joseph Fine

Andrea Rossi
February 9th, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Dear Dr Joseph Fine:
1- about 100,000
2- yes
3- yes
Warm Regards,
A.R.

Posted by on February 10, 2012. Filed under Business,Media & Blogs,products,Roll-Out. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

258 Responses to Andrea Rossi: Almost 100,000 Domestic eCat Orders

  1. AB Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 9:17 am

    Paul, may I suggest adding instructions on how to use quotes into the guidelines and asking people to use them?

  2. Tony Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Probably worth mentioning a few things again about Krivit.

    “Not as smart as a fifth grader”: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html

    “KRIVIT’s Past History of Systematic Disingenuity and Inaccuracy” : http://world.std.com/~mica/DisingenuousKrivit20072.pdf

    “However, Krivit’s articles, on close examination, turn out to involve a mere ‘exercise in blackening’ supported by little substance and no little degree of misrepresentation and error.

    Since I was once chosen as target for such treatment (to which reference should be made to understand the details in the following), I am in a position to demonstrate Krivit’s modus operandi in detail. After this I will attempt an analysis of the underlying psychology.” http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/NET1.html

    “Widom – Larsen advocate, Steven Krivit, recently published three articles, two of which were either authored by Lewis Larsen, or contained references to Larsen’s theory. The third article is an index compiled by Krivit pertaining to his on-going attempt to undermine the legitimacy of McKubre’s ‘M4′ work.” http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62772.html

    Link to rapid Larsen defence of Krivit (see comments), on Hekman’s blog: http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America%27s_Next_%27Space_Race%27_/

    “In the past I believe Krivit has strongly given the impression that scientific fraud was perpetuated by McKubre. I recall this particular issue hit me right in the face when I was still a New Energy Times board member. This happened a year or two ago, when Krivit went on an internet radio show and implied that key CF researchers had “lied” about their research. Krivit didn’t directly say they ‘lied’ about their data during the interview, but he made it quite clear what he wanted the listeners to draw such a conclusion. I privately talked about the content of Krivit’s interview to a lawyer I have known for years. His response back to me was that Krivit was using ‘weasel words’… to imply what he really wanted his listeners to conclude.” http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59670.html

    • GreenWin Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 9:26 pm

      Wow, Krivet shown to be an out and out fabricator of incongruous tales – by a Nobel Laureate! Damn! How many bonafide scientists have dismissed this pseudo journalist now?? Not as smart as a fifth grader indeed. Rather sad.

      LANR=10, Trolls=0

  3. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    I collect what others have suggested are ways to “Cook the Ecat Books”

    1) Miswire the power connector or the power point to deliver more power than indicated.

    2) Allow hot water to flow out with the steam but claim all the water was converted to steam. The Krivit visit video and his follow up NASA statements are strong evidence of this.

    3) Misplace the Tout water temperature to record a higher than real temperature as has been proven to have occurred.

    4) Place a flow constrictor on the steam outlet that will allow higher than atmospheric pressure to be generated inside the water heating device / reactor. This would help to generate an false impression of energy generation with no power applied which was really nothing but the high pressure heated water slowly escaping from a 4 bar steam pressure container (4 bar max pressure is claimed but could be much higher) into a 1 bar real world pressure. As proof watch the video of the 7 Sept test and what happens when the water intake valve is opened.

    06:40 into the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNhQIufkdL4&feature=related

    That mixed steam and water flow should have emptied out the top steam outlet but it did not. You need to ask your self why, especially as Mats Lewan tried to blow through the steam outlet and found it was blocked despite Rossi saying it should be clear and there was no restriction. The data suggests there was a restriction and that was how Rossi generated his 3 hour self sustain mode operation coupled with a false Tout water temperature indicating a much higher than reality COP.

    Each deception by itself is not that big but take them all together and they show how the COP > 1 Ecat result could have been faked.

    Shaun

  4. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 1:35 pm

    Please see in the above listed video time hack the green earth wire is connected to the Ecat at one end at not at the other? You can clearly see it is curled up and not connected. Is this because the earth wire from the plug is carrying current into the Ecat and therefore can’t be used as a earth conductor for the Ecat frame?

    Why would Rossi endanger the lives of everyone at the demonstration from a active input to Ecat frame ground fault?

    Maybe because the Earth wire coming from the plug is not earth but is instead carrying extra current into the Ecat water heating elements?

    If that is so then Rossi could not connect the Ecat earth lead to the power cord earth.

    Please ask yourself why the green earth lead connected to the Ecat box is not connected to anything?

    Anyone touching the Ecat could be electrocuted if a internal active to frame short occurred.

    Is this how Rossi builds his Ecats with no regard to proper earthing of the Ecat frame or is there another reason the Ecat green earth wire is not connected to earth?

    To me this is just another smoking gun pointing to data fraud.

    Shaun

  5. Tony Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    TonyReply
    February 12, 2012 at 11:16 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Probably worth mentioning a few things again about Krivit.
    “Not as smart as a fifth grader”: http://world.std.com/~mica/krivit02052012.html
    “KRIVIT’s Past History of Systematic Disingenuity and Inaccuracy” : http://world.std.com/~mica/DisingenuousKrivit20072.pdf
    “However, Krivit’s articles, on close examination, turn out to involve a mere ‘exercise in blackening’ supported by little substance and no little degree of misrepresentation and error.
    Since I was once chosen as target for such treatment (to which reference should be made to understand the details in the following), I am in a position to demonstrate Krivit’s modus operandi in detail. After this I will attempt an analysis of the underlying psychology.” http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/articles/NET1.html
    “Widom – Larsen advocate, Steven Krivit, recently published three articles, two of which were either authored by Lewis Larsen, or contained references to Larsen’s theory. The third article is an index compiled by Krivit pertaining to his on-going attempt to undermine the legitimacy of McKubre’s ‘M4′ work.” http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg62772.html
    Link to rapid Larsen defence of Krivit (see comments), on Hekman’s blog: http://randyhekman2012.com/_blog/Blog/post/Energy_America%27s_Next_%27Space_Race%27_/

    “In the past I believe Krivit has strongly given the impression that scientific fraud was perpetuated by McKubre. I recall this particular issue hit me right in the face when I was still a New Energy Times board member. This happened a year or two ago, when Krivit went on an internet radio show and implied that key CF researchers had “lied” about their research. Krivit didn’t directly say they ‘lied’ about their data during the interview, but he made it quite clear what he wanted the listeners to draw such a conclusion. I privately talked about the content of Krivit’s interview to a lawyer I have known for years. His response back to me was that Krivit was using ‘weasel words’… to imply what he really wanted his listeners to conclude.” http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg59670.html

  6. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    In the above referenced video watch from 04:12 and see the amount of liquid water that is flowing out of the Ecat steam port.

    I suggest there is more water flowing out than there is steam.

    At 01:50 see there are 3 wires coming out of the Blue control box. Shortly there after see the connector to the Ecat heater with 2 wires connected. As I pointed out before the Ecat was not earthed. BIG electrocution potential here.

    Ask yourself why the Ecat was not earthed?

    Was Rossi totally electrically incompetent or did he not care about the risk of electrocution to his staff and invited guests or was the earth wire from the power point being used to carry extra current and power to the Ecat water heaters elements and therefore could not be used for earthing the Ecat?

    Not a really hard question to answer.

    Others have said they felt water boiling hours after they were told the Ecat’s heaters had been switched off? How was that possible? Well how about you heat water to well over boiling point in a 4 bar or higher pressure container and then slowly release a bit of that pressure to atmosphere. What happens? As the pressure inside the pressure vessel drops, the heater and pressurized water boils as some of it bleeds off to atmosphere. Not much different to dropping the pressure of water in a vacuum chamber and watching the water boil. Old high school physics trick.

    Where was no water boiling from a LENR reactor hours after the power to the Ecat heaters was switched off.

    Sorry guys but you have been conned.

    Shaun

    • Tony Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 2:14 pm

      Wow, you really are quite nasty aren’t you? The snide comments of a troll.

      • Shaun Taylor Reply

        February 12, 2012 at 2:25 pm

        Tony,

        Watch the videos, read my comments. The facts are very clear.

        Shaun

    • AB Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 2:31 pm

      That’s some nice pseudoskeptic fantasy right there.

  7. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    To understand what I talking about in reference to the internal pressure inside the Ecat consider the output system vents steam to atmosphere via a steam outlet pipe fitted to the upper panel of the Ecat module. If as Rossi claims there is no flow restriction in the outlet circuit, the pressure inside the Ecat should be slightly above atmospheric due to some natural restriction in the size of the outlet pipe versus the expanded steam volume.

    As can be seen in the earlier quoted video time hack, the amount of steam and fluid exiting the outlet pipe is not even close in volume, amount or pressure to that which exits the water intake when that valve is opened.

    This mean the generated steam is building up a considerable head of pressure inside the Ecat and is not allowed to freely exit the Ecat despite what Rossi claims.

    By feeding current down the Earth cable, altering the Tout sensor position to generate a higher than reality exit water temperature and generating a high temperature and high pressure reserve of energy inside the Ecat, Rossi can make it look like the Ecat is generation a COP > 1 during powered mode and generating COP infinity energy during non powered mode.

    Like the Wizard of Oz, Rossi is using multiple trick to try to convince the world the Ecat can do things it really can’t do. That is why Rossi has refused every independent test to date.

    Shaun

    • Tony Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 2:23 pm

      Why? Come on, come out and state it.

      • Shaun Taylor Reply

        February 12, 2012 at 2:27 pm

        Why no independent tests? Because the Ecat clearly can’t do what Rossi claims it can do.

        Clear enough?

        Shaun

        • Tony Reply

          February 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm

          No, not really. Your comments are an indrect accusation. Come out and make the direct accusation with all its ramifications, if you’re so sure of your ‘facts’.

        • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

          February 12, 2012 at 3:25 pm

          Where is george when you need him ?

        • daniel maris Reply

          February 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm

          I take you do accept Shaun that LENR is a reality and that Focardi has been a key player in developing LENR – and that Rossi worked closely with Focardi in developing the E Cat…

  8. daniel maris Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    Shuan Taylor suggest it would be easy to “Miswire the power connector or the power point to deliver more power than indicated.” More power than indicated by WHAT? Are you saying the test attenders were prevented from measuring the power?

    Your scam-busting sounds a bit overcomplicated. Why didn’t he just have a secret cable connection to the machine? Wouldn’t that have been a whole lot simpler?

    • AB Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 4:44 pm

      He is also confusing different tests.

      “It can also be noted that after three and a half hours of self sustained operation water could still be felt boiling inside, putting a hand on top of the insulated casing.”

      This quote is from Lewan’s report on the Oct 6 test which didn’t involve steam.

      I’m also not sure why he is focusing on tests with steam. The no-phase change test was done to address the criticism that tests involving steam are a lot more complicated to analyze. I suppose it makes a nicer excuse for trolling though.

      • Al Potenza Reply

        February 12, 2012 at 6:30 pm

        The no-phase change test was unnecessarily made complicated by including an unneeded heat exchanger. If Rossi wanted to cheat, the heat exchanger provided the opportunity to misplace the thermocouple that measured the output temperature. That thermocouple should have been inside the cooling water stream. Instead, it was placed near or on the hottest spot of the heat exchanger’s brass manifold.

        I have trouble understanding why Rossi did not simply cool the ecat with water or glycol directly rather than through a heat exchanger. The power level was no higher than previous tests with smaller ecats that required no heat exchanger.

        And by the way, it was not really a no-phase change system. While the heat exchanger used only liquid in it’s secondary loop, the primary loop from the ecat contained steam. So there was a phase change.

  9. Dale G. Basgall Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Reply to name calling from all the one line morons posting on this site, by the way moron is in the book it’s not a slang.

    The above post of Shaun was well posted and also reflected his honest observations, I suggest all you name callers realize in fact what you say reflects what is consumeing your minds.

    “Silence is the only successful substitute for brains” so for all you “baby hueys” that can’t get an honest thought on paper without dissing someone by namecalling on this site need to silence yourselves or risk getting your literal pipes cleaned out and removed from this site.

    • Tony Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 6:28 pm

      Moron, lol, rotflmao, how amusing.

    • AB Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 6:32 pm

      As an attempt to debunk Rossi the post cannot be taken seriously. He confuses two different tests and focuses on a steam test which was subsequently changed to a water test because of criticism.

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 6:40 pm

      One line comment, hey that’s me ! I’m Mahron not moron.

  10. GreenWin Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    “Duncan has been interested in the phenomenon since CBS’s “60 Minutes” asked him to serve as an outside skeptic for a 2009 episode on work being done at an Israeli lab. Duncan took the trip and concluded that something — he was careful to not conclude what — was creating heat. Some scientists still scoff; others even get emotional about it, Duncan said. To them, he says: “Get over it.”

    Dr. Rob Duncan, Chancellor Research University Missouri

  11. Al Potenza Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 6:05 pm

    @Shaun

    It seems unlikely that Rossi used the power cord to cheat. It would have been too easy for Lewan or someone to put a clamp-on ammeter on it. How would Rossi know that they wouldn’t?

    However, none of the experiments that made steam are “clean”. It would be easy for water to be entrained in the tubing. If you read Krivit, he says that when NASA wanted to clean up the method of measuring the ecat’s output, Rossi refused.

    When Rossi changed over to the larger ecat that NASA nicknamed the Ottoman, he refused to let anyone see what was in it. There is still a question about the thermocouple placement on that one. Putting the thermocouple on the heat exchanger instead of inside the cooling water could cause too high a reading.

    Rossi won’t let anyone test without him. He won’t name a customer. That means, in my opinion, that we just can’t know if his ecat works.

    • daniel maris Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 2:09 am

      I agree that is the position. We don’t know.

      We do know that many leading scientists have deduced that LENR is real and that Rossi worked closely with one of those leading scientists. It is plausible he has an LENR machine, but equally he could be scamming to varying degrees. Until he produces something solid, we just don’t know.

      • Dsm Reply

        February 13, 2012 at 6:48 am

        Daniel
        That is the $64,000 $ question & a very good one.

        Rossi sure understands the need to get some low end units into peoples hands – the industrial units can come later (far more complicated construction in regard to quantities of powdered nickel and packaging that into the cores of larger eCats).

        Rossi knows full well the problems of constructing larger units – Dekaflion are still learning & that is where Rossi has out manouvred them. The larger units have instability problems. This appears to be in the packing of the nickel.

        Rossi has brilliantly opted to manufacture dumbed down units with a COP of 6 when the potential is far greater but so is the instability. So he gets his ‘pocket eCats’ out the door while working on the large unit instability issues.

        Defkalion look like they will keep stumbling along with their faulty large unit strategy. I would ask does anyone seriously believe they will hand 7 units over to ‘independent researchers’ for testing (read reverse engineering & ip theft). Sometimes I wonder if Rossi shafted them by offering them rights to his units for large scale use while he gets his COP 6 pocket eCats out the door. An even more logical possibility is Rossi is still working with Defkalion but they are working on solving the large packaging problems so he can get the pocket eCats out the door..

        Irrespective of what is real, it is a ton of fun.

        Doug M

    • LCD Reply

      February 14, 2012 at 2:07 am

      Al I’ve mentioned that same point before to the skeptics and some of them do get it but others don’t. Rossi has to actually predict what people will and will not test outside the black box to get away with these scams. Either that or he has some voodoo magic he uses to make them do as he pleases.

      Of course the last objection by skeptics is that he continually changes the experiment so that something new is overlooked every time by accident so that excess power is measured. That’s the Australian version. lol

      In the end it’s just as easy of a stretch to say that he has a hidden power source of some type. And of course we simply don’t know if that’s true. That’s up to each person to decide for themselves.

  12. Timar Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 6:44 pm

    Too many bad vibes here lately, this is something for all of you (believers and sceptics alike) to relax and rejoice:

    http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1074

    • Mahron - A4 B3 Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm

      The pope would be a good ally for LENR.

      • Timar Reply

        February 12, 2012 at 7:58 pm

        Indeed – and Ian Bryce knows about it ;)

    • dsm Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 9:54 pm

      Timar

      Thanks for the light relief – a sense of humor is essential when reading these blogs :) :) :)

      BUT I know for a *fact* that not all those 100,000 eCats are going to the vatican – why ? – because Rossi promised me 2 of them & I believe him :) :) :)

      D

  13. harry perini Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 7:39 pm

  14. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    The apparent boiling water with no applied power is a easy trick to do.

    Take a high pressure container. Make it very well insulated. Fit an outlet connector to the pressure container with a very small hole in it that is sized to allow the heated and pressurized water to leak out over 3 – 4 hours. Fill the container with 30 ltrs of water. Heat the water with an electrical element until the internal pressure is at least 4 bar. Switch off the electrical power. Observe over the next 3 hours a steady stream of hot water and steam gurgling out the outlet. Observe that as the internal pressure slowly drops, the water feels to be boiling inside the pressure container.

    The “I can feel the water boiling when I put my hand on the top of the Ecat” effect is due to the slowly dropping pressure inside the container filled with high temperature water at high pressure. It is not due to an Life After Death LENR effect.

    To be clear I do believe in LENR and the Life After Death effect. I do not believe ANY Ecat demo has ever shown powered COP > 1 nor any significant Life After Death.

    It has all been a staged magic trick with a carefully selected and invited audience. This suggests Lewan, Focardi and Levi know a lot more negative information than they have disclosed. They knew the “It has shipped and I went there to install it” Rossi statement was a lie, yet said nothing. I feel for them. They wanted to believe. Their objectivity was compromised. They were used by Rossi to boost his credibility and that of his Ecat.

    Shaun

    • daniel maris Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 2:05 am

      “Shaun”, are you Krivit because you sure as hell sound like him.

      I still feel the “fraud” you are describing could be perpetrated far more cheaply and with less effort in other ways, and with far less risk of detection.

      And are you saying Focardi was lying when he described working with Rossi on prototypes?

  15. GreenWin Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 10:20 pm

    Dr. Rob Duncan (University Missouri) says, National Academy of Sciences approved Cold Fusion funding in 2004 – but no funds ever appropriated.

    “It’s interesting that when this was reviewed in 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences, the NAS came back and recommended that well-controlled experiments in cold fusion be funded by public money just to avoid the the problem you’re mentioning and what surprises me is not only did that never happen, when you go and look at Wikipedia and other sources they’ll say that when this was reviewed by the government in 2004, they came to essentially the same conclusions as 1989. Well that’s not true. In 1989, there was alot more angst and people were ready to pronounce it completely a debunked area of research.”

    “I know alot of scientists who have been involved in this, naturally want to be open and transparent, but without patent protection, they’re left with nothing but trade secrecy to fall back on, and to protect, again, the private equity of their investors, and given that that’s the case, then I imagine what will happen, is this will remain a kind of opaque, kind of not transparent science, for that reason until, someone, possibly Rossi, or someone whose claiming such an outstanding result really proves it, and shows a black box that really does put out 20 times more energy than it consumes.”

    http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/robert-duncan-interview-on-cash-flow-public-investment-means-public-ownership/

  16. Al Potenza Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    “until, someone, possibly Rossi, or someone whose claiming such an outstanding result really proves it, and shows a black box that really does put out 20 times more energy than it consumes.”

    There is something I don’t understand. If a really powerful cold fusion machine like Rossi says he has makes 20x more power than you put in, why could you not take the power from the output to run it? Even with tremendous inefficiency, you’d still have power left! A COP of 20 is very large.

    It’s like all those free energy magnet motors you see on web sites. They all need batteries. Does all CF need input power in the form of externally applied heat even at kilowatt or megawatt levels of output? You can’t use that massive output power to drive the reaction? Why not?

    It seems Dr. Duncan is thinking like Rossi speaks.

    • dsm Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 1:22 am

      Al

      Good question. I always thought that they can run in self-sustaining mode ?

      I interpret the below to be saying that they work more consistently if some level of input current is kept running through the internal reactor heater.

      Rossi quote: “Rossi also says that they have had one reactor that has run continually for two years, providing heat for a factory. It reduced the electric bill by 90%. Also, the reactors can self sustain by turning off the input, but they prefer to have an input. The device will be scheduled for maintenance every six months. You control it “just as you turn on and off your television set.”

      Cheers

      Doug M

  17. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 12, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    Electrochemical LENR cells need electricity to produce a current inside the cell. Ni-H needs electricity to heat the Nickel lattice to a high temperature.

    Converting heat to electricity is not an efficient process. Google “Carnot Cycle” or use this calculator
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html

    With inlet water temp of 60 deg C and outlet at 20 deg C, the max conversion efficiency is 12%. Real world more like 8%. Would need COP >= 12.5 for self sustain.

    At 200 deg C in and 80 deg C out you could expect 24% theory and real world around 18% or COP>= 5.5 for self sustain.

    At 400 deg C it gets better. 47% theory and maybe 35% in practice (harder to minimize thermal losses at 400 deg C) with a min required COP >= 2.6.

    The best LENR shown so far is wet steam at 100 deg C. For that you get 10% theory and 6-7% real world if that.

    Shaun

    • Al Potenza Reply

      February 12, 2012 at 11:55 pm

      @Shaun

      I think you’re combining experiments and confusing the data. Rossi claims operation to 400 degrees C and the E-cat requires heat, not electricity (except a little maybe for a “frequency” generator) to start up.

      Electrochemical LENR is not what I am talking about. Ni-H needs heat but how much? And if the device makes *more* heat (many times more supposedly), that heat can be ducted back to the cell to keep it at the correct temperature.

      There seems to be nothing theoretical to prevent the development of an LENR/LANR or cold fusion machine which runs either with minimal electrical input or with none at all.

      When Duncan said “black box that really does put out 20 times more energy than it consumes.” in my opinion, he was not thinking clearly. It should have been a “black box that puts out a great deal of energy without further input”. Such a thing would indeed prove the reality and practicality of LENR type reactions.

      The idea that an LENR heat source which has a COP of 6 to 20 and an output in kilowatts or megawatts, and can run up to 400C, needs electrical current supplied to it in order to keep it warm is ridiculous.

      • Ransompw Reply

        February 13, 2012 at 12:56 am

        I am really amazed that the discussion for proving anomalous heat has shifted to high output self sustaining reactors. Proof of nuclear ( non chemical ) reactions can easily be proved at even 2x input if the reaction lasts longer then the potential chemical fuel. Even less actually. At that difference proper measures are not hard.

        Why we need a commercial product demonstration to debunk the 23 years of labels like Voodoo Science and fake science is really interesting. I think this is like moving the finish line to distract everyone from the serious error made back in 1989. Not investigating a demonstrated anomaly has no excuse.

        • GreenWin Reply

          February 13, 2012 at 2:05 am

          “I think this is like moving the finish line to distract everyone from the serious error made back in 1989. Not investigating a demonstrated anomaly has no excuse.”

          This is essentially Dr. Duncan’s point. Why if in 2004 the government science advisory arm, The National Academy of Sciences, recommended research funding for LANR – did it not happen?

          The NAS is almost as old and revered as our nation:

          An Act of Congress, signed by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 at the height of the Civil War, calls upon the NAS to provide independent advice to the government on matters related to science and technology. The National Research Council was created under the NAS charter in 1916 to extend the scope of the NAS in its advisory role.

          Who effed this up? Why?? Incompetence? Cowardice? Political pressure?? As Ricky would say, “Lucy, you got some ‘splainin to do!”

        • Al Potenza Reply

          February 13, 2012 at 8:17 am

          I didn’t mean to shift the focus. The remarks were mainly about Rossi. With Rossi’s level of heat production and with the E-cat needing energy mostly in the form of heat to run, it seems patently obvious that if he chose, he could take heat from the coolant output area, and return it to the coolant input area. He could then dispense with electric current except for whatever small amounts are needed for his RFG.

  18. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 13, 2012 at 12:40 am

    Al,

    There is NO non Rossi data which supports long term no power applied LENR operation. Others have reported short term “Life After Death” heat.

    Rossi’s pressure cooker with a very small hole self sustain mode claim is now open to question as it has been shown how this could be faked.

    Piantelli, Focardi and others have shown a long term (approx 9 months) low power output LENR reaction. It needed electrical power to be continually applied to sustain the Nickel rod at the necessary high temperature. Some have suggested the high temp heater’s wires could be the source of free electrons needed to make the Ni-H reaction work. This “boiling off free electrons” effect is used to provide electrons to make vacuum tubes work.

    A working long term self sustain LENR operation is basically a controlled NUCLEAR chain reaction. You do understand that and what it implies?

    Shaun

    • Ransompw Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 1:10 am

      A long term self sustained LENR operation does not have to be a nuclear chain reaction, that is just one possibility. No one is certain about the theory, the reactions may be doing just the opposite of enhancing further reactions they may be sequelching them, requiring the need to engineer a continuing reaction.

      • Shaun Taylor Reply

        February 13, 2012 at 2:30 am

        WTF?

        The LENR reaction requires energy. In a self sustaining reaction, the source of that energy is part of the excess energy from the last nearby lattice site LENR reaction a few pico seconds ago. The rate of Nickel atom by atom LENR reaction determines the amount of liberated excess heat. Too little and it dies out and needs external energy inputted. Too much and you have a melt down. Somewhere in the middle you have a happy ground. As the capacity for the useful heat conduction away from the Nickel atom by Nickel atom chain LENR reaction and into the circulating fluid increases, so to will the level of kWs / mm^3 of energy that can be liberated.

        Just ask yourself what might happen if a large % of the Nickel atom population under went the LENR reaction over a VERY short time frame, like say 1 millisecond. Ok sure the Nickel would melt but of more importance is now much thermal and other non so nice radiation would be released before the 50 grams of Nickel powder turned into liquid Nickel / Copper and stopped the LENR reactions?

        People this is a NUCLEAR reaction of an unknown type. It transmutes elements up and down the atomic scale.

        I’m sure someone on a higher pay scale than me could tell us how much energy would be liberated if 50 grams of Nickel were turned into 50 grams of Copper over 1 millisecond?

        I suggest the amount of energy released would dig a nice hole in the ground plus generate a lot of unstable transmutated isotopes that would drive a radiation detector off the scale.

        I’m happy to see LENR reactors with low COPs, which need power applied to keep them working as they are basically stable and working well down and away from the LENR operating point on the curve of an self sustaining LENR chain reaction.

        A very small star shinning for a millisecond in your basement would not be a good event.

        It would however be a very good and handy weapon.

        Shaun

        • Ransompw Reply

          February 13, 2012 at 3:20 am

          Since you don’t know what is happening, your speculation is just that. However, 23 years of experiments suggest this reaction doesn’t create a chain reaction effect. That may very well be because the reaction requires a very unique environment that may be destroyed if there are many reactions. Excess heat may stop them, Rossi has even stated that so it may be true.

          I think it is very unlikely we have to worry about a chain reaction. That doesn’t mean you couldn’t engineer a device that had a large number of unique environments work at start up, that wouldn’t be a chain reaction but it certainly could be a bomb. Making such a device seems a long way off at this time and even the above is speculation until the theory of what is happening is established. And please stop acting like what others say is dumb, many that disagree with your posts have legitimate points.

    • spacegoat Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 4:03 am

      @Shaun
      Were you ever active in debunking the actual wildly dangerous science in the biological and climate change fields?

      If not, why the focus on LANR?, and why the hysteria about “nuclear” LANR?

      This field has been worked on for 23 years without incident. Wild seeding of nature with potentially incalculably harmful genetic impact (GMO’s) took place without delay.

      What is your vested interest to see LANR retarded or stopped by your “nuclear people!” false alarms?

    • Al Potenza Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 8:21 am

      @Shaun

      I couldn’t tell you about cold fusion because there are too many conflicting theories but hot fusion is not a chain reaction.

      A chain reaction is typical of fission. In that type of reaction, neutrons induce fission which produces more neutrons than were originally put in.

      Classical fusion, for example of lithium deuteride in a thermonuclear bomb, requires immense heat and pressure provided by a specially designed atomic bomb which heats the fuel and compresses it by radiation pressure and the conversion of a polyethylene layer to plasma. When the fission fuel lights off, it creates more heat and pressure (until the explosion blows the bomb apart) but this is not technically a chain reaction.

      You may wish to read the Wikipedia sections about nuclear fusion, nuclear fission and their differences.

  19. GreenWin Reply

    February 13, 2012 at 2:18 am

    Let’s forget Rossi for the moment. What Dr. Duncan, a fairly unimpeachable source, is telling us is… our government has negligently refused to follow the advice of an agency operating under an Act of Congress, and fund research into LANR for nearly a decade. THIS is the real story.

    “Lucy, you got some ‘splainin to do!!”

    • popeye Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 5:59 am

      This fairly unimpeachable source (Duncan) couldn’t even get the name of the government agency right… at least if the interview was correctly transcribed. The agency that reviewed cold fusion in 2004 (for a second time) was the department of energy (DOE), not the national academy of sciences.

      That suggests Duncan hasn’t actually looked at the reports himself, and that some cold fusion advocates have briefed him. The fact that he represented it poorly in the subsequent text strengthens that interpretation:

      Contrary to what Duncan said, the DOE didn’t recommend well-controlled experiments be funded. They recommended “funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions.” That is basically the mandate of funding agencies, so the recommendation was nothing more than a sop to the presenters.

      How does Duncan know that proposals were not entertained? It’s entirely possible that proposals were simply never considered sufficiently well-designed by the reviewers to compete with other proposals for the same funds. That shouldn’t be surprising, given that the panel considered that “poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding” of what was presented to them. Even cold fusion advocates like Nagel have criticized the sloppy work presented by cold fusion researchers. There isn’t a single decent piece of work in the field, and that’s a good reason not to fund more of it.

      According to the interview transcript, Duncan said:

      “what surprises me is not only did that [funding] never happen, when you go and look at Wikipedia and other sources they’ll say that when this was reviewed by the government in 2004, they came to essentially the same conclusions as 1989. Well that’s not true.”

      In fact, it is true. He clearly hasn’t read the conclusions. In fact, the concluding document in 2004 says:

      “While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.”

      In 1989, the panel concluded:

      “Based on these many negative results and the marginal statistical significance of reported positive results, the Panel concludes that the present evidence for the discovery of a new nuclear process termed cold fusion is not persuasive.”

      In 2004, they wrote:

      “The preponderance of the reviewers’ evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. ”

      If you read the individual reviews, one panelist felt that evidence for nuclear reactions was conclusive, and 17 judged it not conclusive. Of the 17, one found the evidence for nuclear reactions compelling, a few found it suggestive, and 11 were strongly negative; even dismissive.

      In 1989, the panel recommended:

      1. The Panel recommends against any special funding for the investigation of phenomena attributed to cold fusion. Hence, we recommend against the establishment of special programs or research centers to develop cold fusion.
      2. The Panel is sympathetic toward modest support for carefully focused and cooperative experiments within the present funding system.
      […]

      which is pretty much exactly what the 2004 panel recommended, as quoted above.

      So, Duncan got it wrong. He got the agency wrong. He got the recommendation wrong. And he got the comparison to 1989 wrong.

      I see no reason to have any confidence that he evaluated the Energetics claims correctly. But he’s got 5 million bucks to find out. When that runs out, and nothing more has been learned, will any of the believers become unbelievers? I seriously doubt it. Some will lose interest probably and/or despair of the massive conspiracy that keeps cold fusion down. But few if any will have the courage to admit they were probably wrong. Especially the ones who have spent 23 years pushing it already.

      (How’s that for splainin, Ricki?)

      • Ransompw Reply

        February 13, 2012 at 6:42 am

        A better question is whether you will admit your analysis was wrong when the anomalous heat is an accepted fact and science verifies LENR.

      • Tony Reply

        February 13, 2012 at 7:16 am

        “There isn’t a single decent piece of work in the field, and that’s a good reason not to fund more of it”

        What a dreadful misrepresentation of reality.

        This highlights you as the liar that you are.

      • Greenwin Reply

        February 13, 2012 at 11:04 am

        Popeye says: “There isn’t a single decent piece of work in the field, and that’s a good reason not to fund more of it.”

        The typical pathoskeptic view betraying trollish agenda. We suppose he means the work now of government NASA Langley, NASA GRC, Naval Research Lab, SPAWAR, and these institutes:

         LUTCH Federal State Unitary Enterprise, Podolsk, Russia
         Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia
         Institute in Physical -Technical Problems, 141980, Dubna, Russia
         P.N. Lebedev Physics Institute, Moscow, Russia
         Enikolopov Institute of Synthetic Polymer materials, Russian Academy of
        Science, Moscow, Russia
         “RECOM”, Russian Research Center “Kurchatov Institute”, Russia
         General Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Science, Russia
         Chelyabinsk State University, Russia
         Proton-21 in Kiev, Ukraine
         Kiev Shevchenko University, Kiev, Ukraine
         University of Lecce, Lecce, Italy
         La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
         University of Siena, Siena, Italy
         University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
         Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, l’Energia e l’Ambiente (ENEA), Rome, Italy
         Instituto Nazionale de Fisica Nucleare, Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati (INFNLNF),
        Rome, Italy
         EURESYS, Rome, Italy
         ORIM Srl, Macerata, Italy
         Pirelli Labs, Milan, Italy
         Centro Sviluppo Materiali SpA, Rome, Italy
         State University of Genoa, Genova, Italy
         Liceo Scientifico “Leonardo da Vinci”, Milan, Italy
         STMicroelectronics, Milan, Italy
         Department of Physics, University of Catania, Italy
         Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
         Advanced Technology Research Center, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Yokohama,
        Japan
         Japan Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute, Japan
         Coherent X-ray Optics Laboratory, Spring-8/RIKEN, Japan
         Laboratory for Nuclear Science, Tohoku University, Mikamine, Sendai, Japan
         Center for Advanced Science and Innovation, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan
         Cold Fusion Research Laboratory, Shizuoka, Japan
         Division of Environmental Energy Science, Graduate School of Science and
        Technology, Kobe University, Japan
         Fukaeminami-machi, Higashinada-ku, Kobe, Japan
         Institute of Quantum Science, Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan
         Institute of Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
         Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
         Institute of Plasma Physics, Hefei, China
         Changchun University of Science and Technology, Changchun, China
         Laboratoire de Recherches Associatives, Franconville, France
         CNAM – Laboratoire des Sciences Nucléaires, Paris, France
         CRMCN-CNRS, Campus de Luminy, Marseille, France
         Howard University, Washington, D.C., US
         Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, US
         SRI International, Menlo Park, CA, US
         Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C., US
         Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, US
         Lattice Energy LLC, Chicago, IL, US
         The Greenview Group, Pleasanton, CA, US
         Research Systems, Inc, Burke, VA, US
         Greenwich Corp., Arlington VA, US
         Low Energy Nuclear Laboratory, Portland State University, Portland, OR, US
         Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT, Cambridge, MA, US
         Fusion Studies Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, US
         Montclair State University, Passaic NJ, US
         University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN,
         First Gate Energies, Kilauea, HI, US
         JET Thermal Products, Wellesley, Massachusetts, US
         SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, CA, US
         Earth Tech International, Austin, TX, US
         Institut für Atomare Physik und Fachdidaktik, Technische Universität, Berlin,
        Germany
         Energetics Technologies, Omer, Israel
         University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
         University Lucian Blaga, Sibiu, Romania
         Monti America Corporation, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada
         National Academy of Sciences, Belarus

        There is of course decent work done by hot fusion science that has sucked up nearly $10Billion taxpayer dollars over 50 years… and delivered exactly ZED, ZERO, NADA, nor one watt of excess fusion energy. We’ll get more ‘splainin on this, won’t we?

        Here is Dr. Edmund Storms’ evaluation of the DOE 2004 report.

        http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEaresponset.pdf

  20. Camilo Reply

    February 13, 2012 at 2:21 am

    Duncan intends to purchase 2 e-cats. Now we are talking.

    http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/feb/12/duncan-talks-cold-fusion-at-saturday-science/

    “Duncan reserves judgment. After giving a talk on the “cold fusion” phenomenon at MU’s Saturday Science series, he said he planned to buy two E-Cats — one to heat his home and another to take apart and figure out. After all, Duncan isn’t interested in how tabletop energy could be applied — at least right now. He’s more interested in the physics behind it. “

  21. Peter Roe Reply

    February 13, 2012 at 9:34 am

    Admin, as you will know, I have been visiting this site and commenting from time to time for many months. During this time I have never complained about the conduct of other contributors, even during the period when ‘mary yugo’, ‘thicket’ and others were at their abusive worst. However I am now seriously concerned about the activities of ‘shawn taylor’, an individual who clearly has an agenda, part of which is to raise false fears about the safety of LENR/CF. He does this by repeatedly suggesting that devices based on LENR have the potential to detonate and cause damage comparable with a nuclear explosion, apparently based on little more than hysterical supposition and playing on the word ‘nuclear’ in LENR.

    Now that the consensus seems to be shifting towards accepting that LENR is real, and that ridicule and accusations of fraud are less effective than was previously the case, the next logical step for those who oppose its introduction is to play the ‘safety’ card. If fears about the safety of LENR can be successfully planted in less questioning minds (or worse, repeated in other media) this will potentially open the way to prohibition and control by government and government agencies, and will certainly prevent the necessary certification being given to domestic CF devices.

    I and others have been suggesting that this would be the case for some considerable time. ‘Shawn taylor’ posts this kind of deliberate misinformation with sufficient regularity to justify the suspicion that he is acting in the role of a ‘mole’ on behalf of an unknown party or parties, in order to bring about exactly this situation. He is clearly an intelligent individual who knows the actual facts, but chooses to misrepresent them for his own propaganda purposes.

    As you will no doubt be aware, this ID has been banned from Vortex discussions due to his posting patterns, and I suggest that you consider a similar course here, in order to limit the damage he can potentially do to the development of LENR. Alternatively perhaps you might consider the possibility of warning him about his repeated suggestions concerning the possibility of nuclear-type explosions in LENR devices, and deleting any such references. I am aware that this would amount to censorship, but when damaging propaganda is being deliberately disseminated, I think that countermeasures may be necessary and justified.

    • DSM Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 10:46 am

      Peter

      I wouldn’t ban him at all. Those who know that there aren’t such dangers just need to keep challenging any such information with open and honest debate. Let readers draw their own conclusions based on the strength of your argument.

      Banning people who you disagree with is not a very nice solution because it is a two edged-sword.

      If you need inspiration as to the harm such exaggerated views might pose, take heart from Rossi himself who has said repeatedly this week (I won’t use his exact words) that the ‘anti’ faction are no longer relevant. They were a concern when it was them against the open minded people in open debate but now it is them against his manufacturing facility activity and nothing they say can stop that now.

      As for them being able to block his sales, allowing all goes to plan they will be flattened in the stampede to buy ‘pocket eCats’ These will cost less than a quality smartphone.

      Once they do go on sale (all going to plan), it is likely the greatest reverse engineering in history will start to occur all around the world as labs get their hands on them. But again, Rossi doesn’t care because he will be churning them out in such volume they can’t begin to compete.

      Doug M

      PS note the word ‘Pocket eCat’ are my quaint name for the small home units.

    • Tony Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 10:48 am

      I wouldn’t say that there’s necessarily a conspiracy – just a massive amount of intellectual arrogance.

      The latest intellectual arrogance is being manifested here: http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/02/cold-fusion-colloquium-at-cern.html

      Basically, it’s hate.

      • Peter Roe Reply

        February 13, 2012 at 11:25 am

        DSM Yes I agree entirely on the undesirability of censorship, but it must be recognised that ‘safety issues’ are now probably the most important potential block to Rossi’s plans (and of course those of DGT). If some party with a bit of weight is able to introduce the fear of ‘nuclear’ into the licensing/certification processes supposedly under way, and especially if they can cite ‘concern’ being expressed by ‘the public’ online, then progress in this area will come to a halt immediately. It will not be resumed until it has been conclusively proved that explosions or runaways are NOT possible in the designs offered, and this of course would be down to the theoretical physicists, many of whom take the sneering and dismissive attitude demonstrated in Tony’s link.

        There could be stalemate for literally years before a few braver souls actually examine the process, devise experiments and eventually prove a theory which excludes the possibility of danger. In view of this I don’t think it is sufficient to take a passive role in counteracting deliberate propaganda as many casual readers here will not be aware of the full facts and will simply depart with the idea that LENR=nuclear=danger that ‘shawn taylor’ seems so keen to suggest at very opportunity.

        Accusations of fraud on the part of Rossi seem to have reached fever pitch on this very popular blog, which may indicate a level of desperation on the part of the apparently numerous trolls who are busily going around in circles here, and probably elsewhere. However, may people are now aware of ‘troll’ activity and the purpose behind it, and while accepting that there are some questions about Rossi’s demonstrations, know that the issue of the reality of CF may well be resolved in the near future by more conclusive experiments conducted by DGT.

        If these experiments successfully prove the existence of a viable CF system nearing commercialisation, then all the hysterical accusations of fraud will evaporate overnight, and all the trolls will need new identities. However, if the idea, repeated often enough, that CF is very dangerous, then this will NOT go away with this evidence and in fact will probably grow, as propaganda focuses on raising the fear level.

        At the moment we only have ‘shawn taylor’ promoting the idea here (with the occasional echo from one or two wannabe ‘skeptics’), and an individual calling himself ‘chen’ who claims to have engineered small-scale nuclear explosions using Ni-H, but I suspect that this theme will become much more widespread very soon. The people who seem so intent on spreading such ideas, whether they are a part of an organised conspiracy or not, need to be challenged at every opportunity. Unfortunately I suspect that their will to misinform is greater than the determination of ‘rationals’ to present the facts every time people like ST raise this fake ‘issue’.

      • Greenwin Reply

        February 13, 2012 at 11:26 am

        Tony, Motl is probably upset at the CERN CLOUD study that destroyed AGW theory, or the superluminal neutrino study that skewers Relativity. Poor Lubos now has to contend with those heretic Italian Physicists who will update the CERN community on LANR, crushing the laws of thermodynamics. Life is tough for pathoskeps terrified their ivory towers are crumbling:

        http://indico.cern.ch/conferenceDisplay.py?confId=177379

        • Pekka Janhunen Reply

          February 13, 2012 at 12:20 pm

          Whatever LENR/LANR/CR does, it doesn’t crush the laws of thermodynamics. (My apology if it was meant as a joke.)

        • Peter Roe Reply

          February 13, 2012 at 1:15 pm

          The piles supporting AGW have been rotting through for quite some time (e.g., see http://www.omsj.org/category/issues/global-warming). I hope the solar radiation / cloud formation discovery proves to be a stake trough its heart, but I doubt it. Too many politicians have too much to lose.

          It seems possible that the neutrino anomaly may reflect some aspect of the nature of mass and its relationship with time that may require a few tweaks to relativity. LENR/LANR looks far more potentially disruptive of establishment physics to me, hence much of the noise.

        • Timar Reply

          February 13, 2012 at 1:56 pm

          What an irony!

          Motl is – apart from beeing an Ignoramus, Cheauvinist and Racist – a frenetic denier of Global Warming.

          • Peter Roe

            February 13, 2012 at 2:11 pm

            “Motl is.. ..a frenetic denier of Global Warming.”

            Good for him.

    • admin Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 11:26 am

      Hi Peter,

      As coincidence will have it, I was writing about this very thing. See new post.

      Paul

    • AB Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 11:26 am

      It’s a tricky situation. There have been explosions in LENR labs. Censoring discussion about this cannot be good.

      However there are many different techniques and materials used in LENR experiments and some of these explosions were unrelated to LENR (hydrogen buildup, defect in pressure valve, etc).

      I couldn’t find any information about Ni-H LENR explosions. Has this ever occurred at all?

      • Peter Roe Reply

        February 13, 2012 at 11:47 am

        Sean taylor among others has cited various instances of runaway reactions, but personally I haven’t seen any substantiated ‘from the horse’s mouth’, so to speak. If anyone has a ‘proper’ reference to any explosions etc. that cannot be explained by steam or hydrogen explosions, or ‘heat after death’ that would obviously be of interest. Anyway, off to see Admin’s new topic…

  22. Shaun Taylor Reply

    February 13, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    F&P reported coming into their lab one morning and finding their latest cell had burnt through the table and into the floor.

    For those of you who think this is NOT a Nuclear Reactor, how you do think Nickel turns into Copper? It is called transmutation and is Fusion. The rate of heat release is based on the number of atoms per time (seconds) that undergoes Nickel to Copper fusion. If the number of Nickel atoms which turn into Copper atoms and in the process release excess energy as heat are lower than the rate of heat conduction away from the reaction site, the reactor temperature will drop and will need additional auxiliary heat applied. Once enough Nickel atoms per time turn into Copper and balance the heat gain versus loss the reactor is at the point of self sustaining operation.

    If the rate of Nickel to Copper conversion is higher than the heat loss, the reactor core will heat up until the extra radiant heat loss balances the heat gain.

    If the rate of Ni to Cu conversion is very high, the reactor will get hot enough to melt the Ni. That process will take some time.

    If the process goes self sustaining REAL QUICK, all bets are off and the reactor may blow up from the excess heat generated.

    Then there is the issue of what and how the 511 keV Gammas are converted into heat, do not exit the lattice as Gamma rays and kill anybody around the reactor.

    Rossi claims to have blown up 100′s of reactors.

    It really amazes me you guys believe this is all safe and reliable.

    LENR is a NUCLEAR REACTION where Nickel atoms are fused into Copper atoms and in the process release Gamma radiation that is somehow turned into infra red radiation. Up to now it has proven to be very difficult to get the reaction going, let alone keep it going.

    That is an engineering problem. If as Rossi and DGT claim to have solved that bit, then it becomes possible to run LENR in self sustaining mode, which means there is a controlled rate of Ni to Cu conversion and heat release that matches the energy requirements of the load.

    Doing that also says you can turn up the Ni to Cu reaction rate to the max and quickly remove the load that is taking away the excess heat. If you can’t just as quickly stop or throttle back the Ni to Cu reaction rate, the now very excess heat generation will at best make the Ni melt or at worst blow the reactor apart. If that happens there may be radioactive Cu and other element isotopes that will be blown out from the core, undergo Beta decay and release non thermalized Gamma radiation.

    Sorry guys but you are playing with a real Nuclear Reactor, which when working OK may seem safe. If you think UL knows how to certify such a LENR reactor then I would like to know what UL certification numbers a Ecat or Hyperion will need to pass?

    Shaun

    • Tony Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 3:02 pm

      You should be posting this on Vortex.

      You’ll have to use another false name though.

    • Peter Roe Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 4:55 pm

      “how you do think Nickel turns into Copper?”

      Got any evidence for that Shawn? I thought you said (many times) that Rossi is a complete fraud, so in that case there could not have been any nickel-copper transmutation could there?

      Make up your mind which it is, because obviously it can’t be both.

    • dsm Reply

      February 13, 2012 at 8:16 pm

      Shaun

      The only explosions I know of were all Pd+D experiments or other non powdered Nickel metals.

      I have not heard of one single explosion with a powdered Nickel+H reactor but have heard of where the powdered Nickel melted & stopped the reaction.

      Powdered Nickel is quite different to a hydrated Pd rod.

      So my question is, can you cite a Powdered Ni+H explosion ? (with link).

      Cheers

      Doug M

  23. ian Bryce Reply

    February 15, 2012 at 10:23 pm

    Why did Mr Rossi refuse Smith’s genuine offer to find the truth?

    Mr Dick Smith: 14 Feb
    I am totally not interested to your proposal, and Mr Sol Millin is not authorized to make any proposal on our behalf.
    As for the testing of our E-Cats, when they will be in the market ( I suppose within next Winter) you will be free to buy one and make all the tests you want. For free.
    Regards,
    Andrea Rossi

    Original Message: 14 February 2012

    I would like to offer you USD1,000,000 for a successful repeat of the March 29, 2011 demonstration.
    Dick Smith

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>